Author: @Eren_Targ5 (Daoplomats)
This proposal seeks to establish a formal "Statute of Limitations" for Uniswap Governance proposals. Specifically, it mandates that any proposal which passes a "Temperature Check" (Snapshot vote) must proceed to an on-chain vote within 90 days.
If a proposal fails to move to an on-chain vote within this 90-day window, the Temperature Check is declared "Expired" (or "Dead"). To proceed, the proposer must restart the governance process with a new Temperature Check to ensure community sentiment remains current.
Currently, Uniswap Governance operates on a continuous cycle. Unlike Optimism or Arbitrum, which utilize specific "Governance Seasons" or "Cycles" that naturally flush out stale proposals at the end of a period, Uniswap proposals can technically remain "pending" indefinitely after passing a Snapshot vote.
This creates critical risks and inefficiencies:
By implementing a 90-day expiration, we align Uniswap with industry best practices (e.g., Sky) and ensure that every on-chain vote reflects the current will of the DAO.
We propose adding the following clause to the official Uniswap Community Governance Process:
"Validity of Temperature Checks: A successful Temperature Check (Snapshot vote) is valid for a period of 90 days from the date the vote closes. If an on-chain governance proposal is not submitted within this 90-day window, the Temperature Check is considered Expired. The proposer must post a new Temperature Check and receive fresh community approval before proceeding to an on-chain vote."
| Status | Definition | Action Required |
|---|---|---|
| Live / Active | A proposal that has passed Snapshot within the last 90 days. | Can proceed to On-chain Vote immediately. |
| Dead / Expired | A proposal that passed Snapshot >90 days ago but has not yet been submitted on-chain. | Must re-run the Temperature Check phase to verify current sentiment. |
We recognize that major protocol upgrades or large-scale initiatives often require development timelines longer than 90 days. However, governance mandates should not be indefinite.
If a proposal has passed a Temperature Check but the technical implementation takes longer than 90 days, the proposer must follow the "Re-affirmation Process":
This change brings Uniswap into alignment with the hygiene standards of other mature DeFi protocols.
| Feature | Current Uniswap Governance | Proposed New Structure |
|---|---|---|
| Snapshot Validity | Indefinite (Technically valid forever) | 90 Days (Statute of Limitations) |
| Stale Proposal Risk | High. A proposal from 1 year ago could theoretically be executed today despite market changes. | Low. Proposals must have a fresh community signal (within 3 months) to execute. |
| Governance Cycle | Continuous / Unbounded | Continuous, but with a rolling expiration window to ensure freshness. |
| Re-submission | Not defined / Confusing | Clear Process: If >90 days, you must re-post Snapshot. |
We have already seen 'Zombie Proposals' confuse the governance process.
This proposal removes this ambiguity. Instead of relying on the goodwill of authors to 're-check' sentiment, we enforce a hard 90-day expiry to ensure every on-chain execution represents the current will of the DAO.
Author: @Eren_Targ5 (Daoplomats)
This proposal seeks to establish a formal "Statute of Limitations" for Uniswap Governance proposals. Specifically, it mandates that any proposal which passes a "Temperature Check" (Snapshot vote) must proceed to an on-chain vote within 90 days.
If a proposal fails to move to an on-chain vote within this 90-day window, the Temperature Check is declared "Expired" (or "Dead"). To proceed, the proposer must restart the governance process with a new Temperature Check to ensure community sentiment remains current.
Currently, Uniswap Governance operates on a continuous cycle. Unlike Optimism or Arbitrum, which utilize specific "Governance Seasons" or "Cycles" that naturally flush out stale proposals at the end of a period, Uniswap proposals can technically remain "pending" indefinitely after passing a Snapshot vote.
This creates critical risks and inefficiencies:
By implementing a 90-day expiration, we align Uniswap with industry best practices (e.g., Sky) and ensure that every on-chain vote reflects the current will of the DAO.
We propose adding the following clause to the official Uniswap Community Governance Process:
"Validity of Temperature Checks: A successful Temperature Check (Snapshot vote) is valid for a period of 90 days from the date the vote closes. If an on-chain governance proposal is not submitted within this 90-day window, the Temperature Check is considered Expired. The proposer must post a new Temperature Check and receive fresh community approval before proceeding to an on-chain vote."
| Status | Definition | Action Required |
|---|---|---|
| Live / Active | A proposal that has passed Snapshot within the last 90 days. | Can proceed to On-chain Vote immediately. |
| Dead / Expired | A proposal that passed Snapshot >90 days ago but has not yet been submitted on-chain. | Must re-run the Temperature Check phase to verify current sentiment. |
We recognize that major protocol upgrades or large-scale initiatives often require development timelines longer than 90 days. However, governance mandates should not be indefinite.
If a proposal has passed a Temperature Check but the technical implementation takes longer than 90 days, the proposer must follow the "Re-affirmation Process":
This change brings Uniswap into alignment with the hygiene standards of other mature DeFi protocols.
| Feature | Current Uniswap Governance | Proposed New Structure |
|---|---|---|
| Snapshot Validity | Indefinite (Technically valid forever) | 90 Days (Statute of Limitations) |
| Stale Proposal Risk | High. A proposal from 1 year ago could theoretically be executed today despite market changes. | Low. Proposals must have a fresh community signal (within 3 months) to execute. |
| Governance Cycle | Continuous / Unbounded | Continuous, but with a rolling expiration window to ensure freshness. |
| Re-submission | Not defined / Confusing | Clear Process: If >90 days, you must re-post Snapshot. |
We have already seen 'Zombie Proposals' confuse the governance process.
This proposal removes this ambiguity. Instead of relying on the goodwill of authors to 're-check' sentiment, we enforce a hard 90-day expiry to ensure every on-chain execution represents the current will of the DAO.
This is beautiful, as this proposal addresses a real problem that's been quietly undermining Uniswap governance for a while --- and I support it in principle.
The "Zombie Proposal" risk alone justifies this change. A delegate being able to push a 2022 Snapshot vote on-chain today --- with zero re-validation of community sentiment --- is a genuine governance vulnerability. Market conditions, protocol upgrades, and community priorities shift significantly over months. Any vote that bypasses current sentiment isn't democratic governance, it's a loophole.
This is beautiful, as this proposal addresses a real problem that's been quietly undermining Uniswap governance for a while --- and I support it in principle.
The "Zombie Proposal" risk alone justifies this change. A delegate being able to push a 2022 Snapshot vote on-chain today --- with zero re-validation of community sentiment --- is a genuine governance vulnerability. Market conditions, protocol upgrades, and community priorities shift significantly over months. Any vote that bypasses current sentiment isn't democratic governance, it's a loophole.
The 90-day window feels reasonable. It's long enough to allow proper deliberation without creating unnecessary pressure, but short enough to ensure proposals reflect current community consensus.
One thing I'd push the proposers to clarify though: what happens to proposals that are mid-deliberation when this rule passes? Do existing pending Snapshot votes get a grace period, or do they expire immediately? That transition mechanism matters and could create controversy if left ambiguous.
Also worth considering --- should the 90-day clock pause during major protocol upgrade periods (like a v3 to v4 transition) where governance bandwidth is naturally stretched? A simple exception clause could prevent good proposals from dying for timing reasons alone.
Overall: strong proposal. Clean it up with a clear transition plan and it should pass comfortably. Voting YES.
We voted FOR the proposal.
Keeping a proposal approved on Snapshot eligible to be submitted at any time is indeed a governance risk for Uniswap, which is why this initiative is a good idea.
However, the procedure, as seen in Arbitrum or Optimism, is more of a social convention than an on-chain mechanism that protects the DAO from any proposal being submitted on-chain without discussion or context.
The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @kaereste and @Manugotsuka, and it is based on their combined research, fact-checking, and discussion.
We voted FOR.
The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @kaereste and @Manugotsuka, and it is based on their combined research, fact-checking, and discussion.
We voted FOR.
We see this as a reasonable governance improvement. Snapshot approvals can remain quiet for long periods, creating uncertainty about whether an old mandate still reflects the DAO's current will. Given how quickly conditions change in crypto, executing a proposal many months after its initial approval may no longer reflect delegate sentiment or current priorities.
A 90-day window seems like a sensible balance. It gives proposers enough time to move forward while keeping governance signals relatively fresh. We also think the reaffirmation Snapshot is a practical mechanism for initiatives that take longer to prepare, allowing the community to confirm support without restarting the entire process.
This is beautiful, as this proposal addresses a real problem that's been quietly undermining Uniswap governance for a while --- and I support it in principle.
The "Zombie Proposal" risk alone justifies this change. A delegate being able to push a 2022 Snapshot vote on-chain today --- with zero re-validation of community sentiment --- is a genuine governance vulnerability. Market conditions, protocol upgrades, and community priorities shift significantly over months. Any vote that bypasses current sentiment isn't democratic governance, it's a loophole.
This is beautiful, as this proposal addresses a real problem that's been quietly undermining Uniswap governance for a while --- and I support it in principle.
The "Zombie Proposal" risk alone justifies this change. A delegate being able to push a 2022 Snapshot vote on-chain today --- with zero re-validation of community sentiment --- is a genuine governance vulnerability. Market conditions, protocol upgrades, and community priorities shift significantly over months. Any vote that bypasses current sentiment isn't democratic governance, it's a loophole.
The 90-day window feels reasonable. It's long enough to allow proper deliberation without creating unnecessary pressure, but short enough to ensure proposals reflect current community consensus.
One thing I'd push the proposers to clarify though: what happens to proposals that are mid-deliberation when this rule passes? Do existing pending Snapshot votes get a grace period, or do they expire immediately? That transition mechanism matters and could create controversy if left ambiguous.
Also worth considering --- should the 90-day clock pause during major protocol upgrade periods (like a v3 to v4 transition) where governance bandwidth is naturally stretched? A simple exception clause could prevent good proposals from dying for timing reasons alone.
Overall: strong proposal. Clean it up with a clear transition plan and it should pass comfortably. Voting YES.
We voted FOR the proposal.
Keeping a proposal approved on Snapshot eligible to be submitted at any time is indeed a governance risk for Uniswap, which is why this initiative is a good idea.
However, the procedure, as seen in Arbitrum or Optimism, is more of a social convention than an on-chain mechanism that protects the DAO from any proposal being submitted on-chain without discussion or context.
The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @kaereste and @Manugotsuka, and it is based on their combined research, fact-checking, and discussion.
We voted FOR.
The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @kaereste and @Manugotsuka, and it is based on their combined research, fact-checking, and discussion.
We voted FOR.
We see this as a reasonable governance improvement. Snapshot approvals can remain quiet for long periods, creating uncertainty about whether an old mandate still reflects the DAO's current will. Given how quickly conditions change in crypto, executing a proposal many months after its initial approval may no longer reflect delegate sentiment or current priorities.
A 90-day window seems like a sensible balance. It gives proposers enough time to move forward while keeping governance signals relatively fresh. We also think the reaffirmation Snapshot is a practical mechanism for initiatives that take longer to prepare, allowing the community to confirm support without restarting the entire process.
Great proposal — cutting zombie tasks is exactly what DAOs need to stay lean.
One thing I'd add: we should watch out for "zombie proposals" too.
Great proposal — cutting zombie tasks is exactly what DAOs need to stay lean.
One thing I'd add: we should watch out for "zombie proposals" too.
Just like tasks, approved proposals often die after the vote. Not because they're bad ideas, but because there's no system to actually get them done. I've seen this happen on Uniswap — good proposals pass, then... nothing. No follow-through, no accountability, just silence until everyone forgets.
Here's what helps: an Execution Registry.
Simple idea. Once a proposal passes, it goes into a public tracker. Someone's named responsible. Deadline's set. Success criteria are clear. Progress gets checked weekly. A few community members rotate in to verify the work actually got done. When it's finished, it's marked complete and we document what worked (or didn't).
Why this matters for your proposal:
Every task we kill gets recorded — why we cut it, what we learned
New proposals get a reality check before they go to vote
People can actually see what's getting delivered, not just what's getting approved
I'm a DAO Operations Partner — I help teams turn governance into results without turning into a company. Done this for a few DAOs and happy to share what works.
Let me know if you want to dig into this or test it out.
Thanks for pushing Uniswap to run tighter.
If no one has any objections / comments for the proposal in the next 3 days then we will be putting it up for a vote next week.
Great proposal — cutting zombie tasks is exactly what DAOs need to stay lean.
One thing I'd add: we should watch out for "zombie proposals" too.
Great proposal — cutting zombie tasks is exactly what DAOs need to stay lean.
One thing I'd add: we should watch out for "zombie proposals" too.
Just like tasks, approved proposals often die after the vote. Not because they're bad ideas, but because there's no system to actually get them done. I've seen this happen on Uniswap — good proposals pass, then... nothing. No follow-through, no accountability, just silence until everyone forgets.
Here's what helps: an Execution Registry.
Simple idea. Once a proposal passes, it goes into a public tracker. Someone's named responsible. Deadline's set. Success criteria are clear. Progress gets checked weekly. A few community members rotate in to verify the work actually got done. When it's finished, it's marked complete and we document what worked (or didn't).
Why this matters for your proposal:
Every task we kill gets recorded — why we cut it, what we learned
New proposals get a reality check before they go to vote
People can actually see what's getting delivered, not just what's getting approved
I'm a DAO Operations Partner — I help teams turn governance into results without turning into a company. Done this for a few DAOs and happy to share what works.
Let me know if you want to dig into this or test it out.
Thanks for pushing Uniswap to run tighter.
If no one has any objections / comments for the proposal in the next 3 days then we will be putting it up for a vote next week.
